Latest / Uncensored Objection / [Podcast] Trump’s Justice-for-Sale: How Loyalty Bought Pardons and Mocked the Rule of Law

Transcript

[Podcast] Trump’s Justice-for-Sale: How Loyalty Bought Pardons and Mocked the Rule of Law · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  Okay,
• 0:00
  so you sent us this article,
• 0:02
  and it's a pretty interesting one,
• 0:05
  I gotta say.
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_00: It's by Mitch Jackson over at his substack Uncensored Objection.
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:11
  SPEAKER_00: And he's an attorney,
• 0:12
  SPEAKER_00: as you know,
• 0:13
  SPEAKER_00: and he's always got his finger on the pulse of the political landscape.
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_00: And so this time around, he is looking at President Trump.
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_00: And I mean, this is a big one.
• 0:24
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 0:25
  Because,
• 0:25
  you know,
• 0:26
  we're talking about a president who is actually a convicted
• 0:29
  felon right now.
• 0:30
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 0:30
  SPEAKER_01: It's it's a pretty unprecedented situation.
• 0:32
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, how often does that happen?
• 0:33
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:34
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 0:34
  SPEAKER_00: And and so.
• 0:36
  In this particular article,
• 0:38
  Mitch is really zeroing in on some pardons that Trump has issued.
• 0:42
  And he sees those as having some pretty significant
• 0:45
  implications for the justice
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_00: system in general.
• 0:48
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 0:49
  So I think what we're going to do in this deep dive is really
• 0:51
  try to get to the
• 0:52
  core of what Mitch is arguing about these pardons and what they
• 0:55
  might mean more broadly.
• 0:57
  exactly so let's uh let's jump right in shall we the first case
• 1:01
  that uh that mitch
• 1:02
  brings up is this guy trevor milton right the founder of nicola
• 1:06
  motors yes um and
• 1:08
  for folks who've been following business news this is a name
• 1:10
  that will probably
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_00: sound familiar
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, this this was a big case.
• 1:13
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 1:15
  And as Mitch details in the article,
• 1:17
  Milton ended up facing some some really serious charges.
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_01: Ultimately, he was convicted of both securities fraud and wire fraud.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_01: Now, to put that in simpler terms.
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:29
  He was found guilty of deliberately misleading investors about
• 1:32
  his company.
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_00: Okay,
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_00: so,
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: when we hear these legal terms,
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_00: securities fraud,
• 1:37
  SPEAKER_00: wire fraud,
• 1:38
  SPEAKER_00: it can sound a little bit abstract,
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_00: but what we're really talking about is lying to people.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_00: To get them to invest in something.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, and the article mentions these specific legal codes.
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_01: 15 U.S.C.
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_01: Section 78JB.
• 1:51
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_01: And 18 U.S.C.
• 1:53
  SPEAKER_01: Section 1343.
• 1:54
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 1:55
  Essentially,
• 1:55
  those target this deliberate misrepresentation of information.
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_01: To investors, particularly with the intent to defraud them.
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_00: And it wasn't just like, you know, a small amount of money.
• 2:06
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, no, not at all.
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_00: The scale of this was enormous.
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 2:11
  The article mentions investor losses exceeding six hundred
• 2:15
  million dollars.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_00: Six hundred million.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_01: That's not just some abstract figure.
• 2:20
  SPEAKER_01: No, that's real money.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_01: That people put in based on what turned out to be false information.
• 2:25
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:25
  SPEAKER_00: It's people's life savings.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_00: It's their retirement.
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_00: It's, you know, it's their dreams.
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_00: Dreams.
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:31
  SPEAKER_01: Gone.
• 2:32
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:32
  SPEAKER_00: And Mitch really emphasizes this point that it wasn't some kind of,
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_00: minor oversight or mistake.
• 2:39
  SPEAKER_01: This was deliberate.
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_01: A jury heard all the evidence.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:42
  Waited all out and concluded that Milton had straight up lied
• 2:47
  to investors.
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_00: there was that detail about him,
• 2:50
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_00: falsely claiming that these trucks were fully functional.
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_00: And then they actually staged a video.
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_01: I know.
• 2:56
  SPEAKER_00: Of one rolling downhill.
• 2:58
  SPEAKER_01: Talk about deception.
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_01: So it wasn't just a technicality.
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_01: It was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
• 3:04
  And so because of that,
• 3:06
  I mean,
• 3:06
  the sentence reflected how serious these actions were.
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_01: For sure.
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_00: Four years in prison.
• 3:11
  SPEAKER_01: That's right.
• 3:12
  SPEAKER_00: Which brings us to the...
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 3:45
  SPEAKER_00: He supported Trump.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_00: He liked Trump.
• 3:49
  SPEAKER_00: I didn't know him, but they got him.
• 3:51
  SPEAKER_00: And you don't realize this is a vicious.
• 3:53
  SPEAKER_00: Well, it kind of trails off there.
• 3:55
  SPEAKER_00: But yeah, but it's interesting, right?
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_01: Because the reasoning or the justification presented.
• 3:59
  It seems to hinge on this idea of perceived unfairness and
• 4:04
  Milton's past support
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_00: for Trump rather than any critique of the legal process itself.
• 4:12
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 4:12
  SPEAKER_01: Or any new evidence.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_01: Coming to light.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: So it raises this question of.
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_00: What's the basis for these pardons?
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_01: What are the criteria here?
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_01: What are we looking at?
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_00: And Mitch doesn't hold back at all in his reaction.
• 4:27
  SPEAKER_01: No, he's very straightforward.
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, he calls it narcissism soaked in corruption.
• 4:33
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that's strong language.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 4:35
  SPEAKER_00: For sure.
• 4:35
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_00: But then he goes on to ask some really fundamental questions.
• 4:39
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 4:39
  SPEAKER_00: And he directs these to you, the listener.
• 4:41
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_01: I'm listening.
• 4:43
  SPEAKER_00: What does this say about the rest of us who have to abide by the law?
• 4:47
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 4:48
  SPEAKER_00: What's the point of having a court system?
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_00: Of going through a trial?
• 4:51
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_00: If the outcome can be so easily dismissed?
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_01: Dismissed like it means nothing.
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 4:57
  SPEAKER_00: And ultimately, what value does truth hold?
• 4:59
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_00: In such a scenario?
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 5:01
  These are these are really fundamental questions about how our
• 5:04
  legal system is supposed to work.
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_01: With all of its safeguards,
• 5:09
  SPEAKER_01: safeguards,
• 5:09
  SPEAKER_01: procedures,
• 5:10
  checks and balances can be bypassed based on personal
• 5:14
  connections or a feeling of
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_01: injustice without any clear legal rationale.
• 5:19
  SPEAKER_00: It really challenges the whole idea of equal justice.
• 5:23
  SPEAKER_01: It does.
• 5:24
  It really undermines that idea that we're all accountable under
• 5:27
  the same laws.
• 5:28
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 5:28
  SPEAKER_00: And that's a core principle of any functioning legal system.
• 5:31
  SPEAKER_00: For sure.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_00: That everyone is equal.
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_01: OK.
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_01: So let's move on to the second case that Mitch discusses in the article.
• 5:37
  SPEAKER_00: Sure.
• 5:37
  SPEAKER_01: This is Carlos Watson.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_01: The co-founder of OZ Media.
• 5:41
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:41
  SPEAKER_00: Another high profile case.
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_01: And another case involving a lot of money.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 5:46
  SPEAKER_01: So Watson's convictions were for conspiracy to commit securities fraud,
• 5:55
  SPEAKER_01: conspiracy to commit wire fraud,
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_01: and also aggravated identity theft.
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_00: So this is a slightly different set of charges.
• 6:04
  SPEAKER_01: But again, it involves this scheme where he defrauded investors.
• 6:09
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 6:09
  SPEAKER_01: Of a huge amount of money.
• 6:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:11
  SPEAKER_00: Over $60 million.
• 6:12
  SPEAKER_00: $60 million.
• 6:14
  SPEAKER_00: So again, similar to the Milton case.
• 6:16
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:16
  Very serious felonies,
• 6:19
  deliberate deception,
• 6:21
  and significant financial harm.
• 6:24
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_00: And the sentence he received was substantial.
• 6:27
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_00: Ten years in prison.
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_01: Ten years.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: Which was actually scheduled to begin on the very day.
• 6:33
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_00: That President Trump commuted it.
• 6:36
  SPEAKER_01: Really?
• 6:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_00: The article really emphasizes this.
• 6:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:39
  SPEAKER_00: This suddenness.
• 6:40
  SPEAKER_00: It says Trump swooped in to commute it.
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_00: for folks who might not know,
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_00: the difference between a pardon and a commutation,
• 6:48
  SPEAKER_00: a pardon is a complete forgiveness of a crime,
• 6:51
  SPEAKER_00: whereas a commutation reduces or ends a sentence,
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_00: but it doesn't erase the conviction.
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_01: So it's still acknowledging.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_01: That the person was convicted.
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_01: But it's changing the punishment.
• 7:03
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 7:04
  SPEAKER_00: And so the timing here is striking.
• 7:06
  SPEAKER_00: You know, to have a sentence commuted on the day.
• 7:09
  SPEAKER_00: Wow.
• 7:10
  SPEAKER_00: It's supposed to begin.
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_00: Really raises questions about the process.
• 7:14
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 7:14
  But the motivation and the motivations,
• 7:16
  you know,
• 7:16
  what criteria are being used here.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_01: What's the justification for intervening in this way?
• 7:21
  Okay,
• 7:21
  so then we have this third situation that Mitch brings to our attention.
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 7:26
  SPEAKER_00: And this involves the BitMEX trio.
• 7:29
  SPEAKER_01: The BitMEX trio, okay.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Dillow, and Samuel Reed.
• 7:34
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 7:35
  And this case was a little bit different in terms of the
• 7:39
  specific charges.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 7:41
  So Hayes,
• 7:41
  Dillow,
• 7:42
  and Reed pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act.
• 7:46
  SPEAKER_01: The Bank Secrecy Act.
• 7:47
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_00: So this isn't securities fraud like the other cases.
• 7:51
  But the Bank Secrecy Act is a really critical piece of
• 7:54
  legislation that's aimed at
• 7:56
  SPEAKER_00: preventing financial institutions from being used for illicit purposes.
• 8:00
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, I see.
• 8:00
  So think of it as a set of rules that banks and other financial
• 8:04
  players have to
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_00: follow to make sure that they're not facilitating money laundering.
• 8:09
  Okay,
• 8:09
  so it's about preventing dirty money from flowing through the system.
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_00: And the penalty they faced was significant.
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_01: All right, how significant are we talking?
• 8:18
  SPEAKER_00: $100 million fine.
• 8:21
  SPEAKER_01: $100 million.
• 8:21
  SPEAKER_00: Wow.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_00: For failing to implement these anti-money laundering programs.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_01: Right, so these programs are crucial.
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_00: They are absolutely crucial.
• 8:29
  Because as Mitch points out,
• 8:31
  the lack of these programs can have really serious consequences.
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_00: It can enable criminal activity, terrorism financing, large-scale fraud.
• 8:40
  SPEAKER_01: All sorts of bad stuff.
• 8:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 8:41
  SPEAKER_00: All sorts of bad stuff.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_01: OK.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_00: And in this context.
• 8:44
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 8:44
  SPEAKER_00: President Trump issued full pardons.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_01: Full pardons.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_01: To all three of them.
• 8:50
  SPEAKER_00: OK.
• 8:50
  SPEAKER_00: So when we look at these three cases together.
• 8:53
  SPEAKER_01: Yes.
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_00: Through the lens of Mitch's article.
• 8:56
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_00: His central argument really crystallizes.
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 9:00
  He believes that the justice system is being reduced to what he
• 9:03
  calls a loyalty test.
• 9:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 9:06
  SPEAKER_00: And he has this really pointed quote.
• 9:07
  SPEAKER_01: What's the quote?
• 9:08
  SPEAKER_00: He says, you support Trump.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_00: You like Trump.
• 9:11
  SPEAKER_00: He doesn't know you, but that's fine.
• 9:13
  SPEAKER_00: You're in the club.
• 9:15
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 9:15
  SPEAKER_00: That's a powerful statement.
• 9:17
  SPEAKER_01: It is.
• 9:17
  SPEAKER_00: And it gets to the heart of what Mitch is concerned about.
• 9:21
  SPEAKER_01: What's that?
• 9:22
  SPEAKER_00: He's suggesting that the traditional principles of justice,
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_00: where decisions are based on evidence,
• 9:29
  SPEAKER_00: legal precedent,
• 9:31
  SPEAKER_00: the rule of law,
• 9:32
  are being overshadowed by considerations of personal or
• 9:36
  political allegiance.
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_01: I see.
• 9:38
  SPEAKER_01: So it's not about the facts of the case.
• 9:39
  SPEAKER_00: It's not about the facts of the case.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_01: It's about who you are.
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_01: You know, who you support.
• 9:44
  SPEAKER_00: And whether you're loyal.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: To a particular person.
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_01: And so the core issue here.
• 9:49
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 9:50
  SPEAKER_01: Is whether the application of justice is becoming contingent.
• 9:53
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_01: On who you know or who you support.
• 9:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_01: Rather than on the merits of the case itself.
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_00: So it's like justice is being personalized.
• 10:01
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 10:01
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 10:02
  SPEAKER_01: It's a scary thought.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 10:04
  SPEAKER_01: And Mitch doesn't stop there.
• 10:05
  SPEAKER_00: He goes on to talk about the bigger picture.
• 10:07
  SPEAKER_01: OK.
• 10:08
  SPEAKER_00: And he warns about the potential erosion of democracy.
• 10:11
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_00: When institutions like the justice system are undermined in this way.
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_01: Undermined by these pardons.
• 10:19
  SPEAKER_00: One pardon at a time.
• 10:20
  SPEAKER_01: One pardon at a time.
• 10:21
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_01: As he puts it.
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_01: That's a chilling thought.
• 10:24
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 10:24
  And it's an important point because a healthy democracy relies
• 10:28
  on public trust in
• 10:29
  SPEAKER_00: its institutions.
• 10:30
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 10:31
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 10:31
  And so when there's a perception that these institutions are
• 10:35
  not operating
• 10:36
  SPEAKER_00: impartially or that the rules aren't being applied equally to everyone,
• 10:40
  SPEAKER_00: it erodes that trust.
• 10:42
  SPEAKER_01: It does.
• 10:42
  SPEAKER_00: And it weakens the foundations of the democratic system itself.
• 10:46
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 10:46
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_00: And,
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 10:47
  he also raises these really profound questions about the impact
• 10:52
  on the people who
• 10:53
  SPEAKER_00: work within the justice system.
• 10:54
  SPEAKER_01: The people who are actually doing the work.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_00: The F&B Guy agents who spend countless hours investigating these cases.
• 11:01
  SPEAKER_01: Building the case.
• 11:01
  SPEAKER_00: The Department of Justice lawyers.
• 11:03
  who meticulously build the legal arguments and the everyday
• 11:08
  citizens who serve on
• 11:09
  SPEAKER_00: juries often taking time away from their lives to do this.
• 11:13
  SPEAKER_01: To serve their civic duty.
• 11:14
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and carrying the weight of these decisions.
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_01: It's a big responsibility.
• 11:18
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 11:19
  SPEAKER_00: And there's this quote that really resonated with me.
• 11:22
  SPEAKER_01: What's the quote?
• 11:22
  SPEAKER_00: He says,
• 11:23
  what message does this send to every FBI agent who tracked down
• 11:28
  the truth,
• 11:28
  SPEAKER_00: to every DOJ lawyer who built a case brick by brick,
• 11:32
  to every juror who sat through days of testimony holding the
• 11:36
  weight of justice on
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_00: their shoulders?
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: Apparently it means nothing if Donald Trump doesn't like the verdict.
• 11:42
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 11:43
  SPEAKER_01: That's powerful.
• 11:44
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 11:45
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 11:45
  It really speaks to the potential of these actions to
• 11:49
  demoralize the people who are
• 11:50
  SPEAKER_01: trying to uphold the law.
• 11:51
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 11:52
  You know,
• 11:52
  if their efforts and the outcomes of due legal process can be
• 11:57
  so easily overturned.
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_01: Overturned by a single person with the stroke of a pen.
• 12:01
  SPEAKER_00: It raises questions about the value of their work.
• 12:03
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 12:04
  SPEAKER_01: Why bother?
• 12:04
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_01: If it can all be undone just like that.
• 12:07
  SPEAKER_00: And it challenges the whole notion of an independent justice system.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_01: Like, what's the point of the system?
• 12:11
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 12:11
  SPEAKER_01: If it's not actually independent.
• 12:14
  SPEAKER_00: And the article concludes by really emphasizing this idea.
• 12:17
  SPEAKER_01: What idea?
• 12:18
  SPEAKER_00: That a functioning democracy isn't based on personal feelings or vibes.
• 12:23
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 12:24
  SPEAKER_00: But on a foundation of law, established facts.
• 12:28
  SPEAKER_00: Facts.
• 12:28
  SPEAKER_00: And fundamental fairness.
• 12:30
  SPEAKER_01: Fairness.
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_00: And it ends with some really powerful questions.
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_01: Let's hear them.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_00: I think it's worth us all considering.
• 12:36
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 12:37
  SPEAKER_00: He says,
• 12:38
  when a man who once swore to uphold the Constitution can so
• 12:42
  casually disregard the
• 12:43
  entire machinery of justice when he can tear it down in a
• 12:46
  sentence or two,
• 12:48
  SPEAKER_00: we have to ask what's left,
• 12:49
  SPEAKER_00: not just for the lawyers and prosecutors and jurors,
• 12:52
  SPEAKER_00: for all of us.
• 12:53
  SPEAKER_00: Because if justice becomes optional for the powerful,
• 12:57
  SPEAKER_00: it becomes meaningless for the rest of us and that that's not America.
• 13:00
  SPEAKER_00: That's a con.
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_01: Wow, those are some stark words.
• 13:04
  SPEAKER_01: They are.
• 13:04
  But they really underscore the potential long-term consequences
• 13:08
  that Mitch sees in
• 13:09
  SPEAKER_01: these actions.
• 13:10
  SPEAKER_00: He's not sugarcoating it.
• 13:12
  SPEAKER_01: No, he's not.
• 13:12
  He's urging us to think critically about what it means when the
• 13:16
  principles of
• 13:17
  SPEAKER_00: justice appear to be selectively applied.
• 13:20
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 13:20
  SPEAKER_01: Applied to some, but not to others.
• 13:22
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 13:22
  SPEAKER_01: Based on who they are or who they know.
• 13:24
  SPEAKER_00: And what that could mean for the future of the rule of law.
• 13:27
  SPEAKER_01: The rule of law in America.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_00: In the United States.
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_01: It's a pretty fundamental question.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 13:32
  SPEAKER_01: About the nature of our democracy.
• 13:34
  So as we wrap up this deep dive into Mitch Jackson's article
• 13:39
  over at Uncensored Objection,
• 13:42
  it's clear that these recent pardons and the circumstances
• 13:46
  surrounding them have
• 13:48
  really sparked a conversation about the core tenets of our
• 13:53
  justice system and the
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_00: principles that underpin it.
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_01: It's a debate about what justice actually means.
• 13:58
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 13:59
  SPEAKER_01: In this country.
• 14:00
  SPEAKER_00: And Mitch's piece offers a really compelling perspective.
• 14:04
  SPEAKER_01: It does.
• 14:04
  SPEAKER_00: On these events.
• 14:05
  SPEAKER_00: And it prompts us to really think about the potential ramification.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_01: The ramification for the whole century.
• 14:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, for the integrity of our legal framework.
• 14:14
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 14:14
  SPEAKER_00: And the ideal of equal justice for all.
• 14:18
  SPEAKER_01: Which is supposed to be a cornerstone of our society.
• 14:21
  SPEAKER_00: So if this discussion has given you some food for thought,
• 14:24
  SPEAKER_00: we strongly encourage you to head over to Mitch Jackson's sub-stab.
• 14:28
  SPEAKER_01: Uncensored Objection.
• 14:29
  SPEAKER_00: Uncensored Objection.
• 14:31
  SPEAKER_00: You can read the article in full over there,
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_00: and you'll find a ton of other insightful commentary.
• 14:37
  SPEAKER_01: He's always got something interesting to say.
• 14:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, on current events.
• 14:40
  SPEAKER_00: It's a great space for important discussions.
• 14:43
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 14:43
  SPEAKER_00: So make sure to subscribe,
• 14:45
  SPEAKER_00: share his work with others,
• 14:47
  SPEAKER_00: and definitely jump into the comments section.
• 14:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, engage in the conversation.
• 14:50
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, exactly.
• 14:51
  SPEAKER_01: So to wrap things up, I'd like to leave you with this thought.
• 14:54
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 14:55
  In a society where the perception of justice can be so
• 15:02
  profoundly influenced.
• 15:03
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 15:04
  What is the responsibility of each informed citizen in actively
• 15:09
  safeguarding the
• 15:09
  SPEAKER_01: principles of law?
• 15:11
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 15:11
  SPEAKER_01: And ensuring fairness and accountability.
• 15:13
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 15:14
  SPEAKER_01: For everyone.
• 15:15
  SPEAKER_00: Regardless of their position.
• 15:16
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 15:17
  SPEAKER_00: Or connections.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_01: That's the question.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_00: That's the question.
• 15:19
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 15:20
  SPEAKER_00: All right.
• 15:20
  SPEAKER_00: Well, thank you for joining us for this deep dive.
• 15:23
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 15:23
  SPEAKER_01: My pleasure.
• 15:24
  SPEAKER_00: And we'll see you next time.
• 15:26
  SPEAKER_01: Sounds good.